Top 5 modern day greats

[Matt79]

People never seem to rate keepers once they're gone...

 

[silentstriker]

Many people would have him in or near an all time side. Certainly more than would have Lara or Tendulkar in that side.

Unfortunately, this is not true. It should be, but it is not. You just have to look at people's all time XIs that have been posted.

 

[stephen]

Unfortunately, this is not true. It should be, but it is not. You just have to look at people's all time XIs that have been posted.

I meant people who actually know something about the game

 

[Sanz]

Haha well it doesn't exactly hurt my feelings. In fact I got a good chuckle from it. I just can't take anyone seriously who doesn't rate Warne in the top five players of the last two decades.
He basically turned spin bowling into artwork. Particularly in his golden period from 1993-1998 he was simply unplayable and basically ended the career of Daryl Cullinan, along with making most other batsmen look like fools.

His struggles against India are well publicised, but they are his only blemish.

Anyway, you're allowed not to rate him in your top 5 of the last two decades. But similarly, I am allowed to giggle at your choices.

Sounds like new Troll on the forum.

 

[adharcric]

Not really.

 

[stephen]

Sounds like new Troll on the forum.

New? I've been here a while now.

Regardless, it's not like I'm abusing other people, unless you count finding their ideas amusing as abuse. I also think you'd be hard pressed to find a serious commentator who didn't agree with me on the Warne point.

So next time instead of flaming, you might want to actually contribute to a thread.

 

[silentstriker]

I meant people who actually know something about the game

Well if the criteria for knowing something about the game is the inclusion of McGrath in an all time XI, that would exclude a lot of people, like Benaud, and most other well known people. The people on this site don't have significantly different all time XI: most Tendulkar and/or Lara in the all time XI but only a few have McGrath.

 

[stephen]

Well if the criteria for knowing something about the game is the inclusion of McGrath in an all time XI, that would exclude a lot of people, like Benaud, and most other well known people. The people on this site don't have significantly different all time XI: most Tendulkar and/or Lara in the all time XI but only a few have McGrath.

Well I did say "in or near" and I was being sarcastic with that post.

Regardless, McGrath was a better bowler than Lara, Tendulkar or Ponting were batsmen.

 

[chrisbroxton]

im suprised im only one of 4 who voted for Walsh, surely hes one of the best bowlers since the years of roberts and holding etc.

 

[adharcric]

Well if the criteria for knowing something about the game is the inclusion of McGrath in an all time XI, that would exclude a lot of people, like Benaud, and most other well known people. The people on this site don't have significantly different all time XI: most Tendulkar and/or Lara in the all time XI but only a few have McGrath.

Disagree. You'll see Bradman and Hammond in the middle-order and unless Sobers makes it there to accommodate a bowling all-rounder, either Richards, Tendulkar or Lara. Based on my experience at CW, I'd say Richards comes just ahead of the other two. In the bowling department, you get Marshall and he's often accompanied by McGrath unless Hadlee is preferred for his similar bowling stature and additional batting utility. McGrath probably makes all-time XIs here more often than Tendulkar does and certainly more often than Lara does.

 

[stephen]

im suprised im only one of 4 who voted for Walsh, surely hes one of the best bowlers since the years of roberts and holding etc.

Aye, he is an all time great. Unfortunately for him I can name three bowlers off the top of my head from the same era who I would rate higher:

McGrath
Ambrose
Wasim

Donald as well was up there at a similar level, as was Pollock (though he's arguably not as good as Walsh). Waqar must get some consideration also.

So all in all, I rate Walsh, but I understand why many don't rate him in the top 5.

Oh and welcome to CW, hope you post some more .

 

[bagapath]

Well if the criteria for knowing something about the game is the inclusion of McGrath in an all time XI, that would exclude a lot of people, like Benaud, and most other well known people. The people on this site don't have significantly different all time XI: most Tendulkar and/or Lara in the all time XI but only a few have McGrath.

SS! This is why I respect you. I know your love for McGrath but you are not conveniently taking the argument in your favor and simply blaming people without McGrath in their XIs as lacking in cricketing knowledge. Well done, mate.

 

[Ikki]

ikki, there is a reason why ponting is not getting enough votes on this poll. (hint: avg 20 in a major test playing country over 12 tests) sachin and lara have been far and away the best batsmen of the past two decades

(also, gilly was not the best keepr of the era; it was healy. gilly was the best keeper/batsman)

Sachin averages 28 against S.Africa at home. Your point? Sobers averages 15 in NZ and 23 overall. Wally Hammond averages 25 in WIndies.

On the whole, Ponting is simply better. We've been through this.

 

[Ikki]

McGrath not feeling the love from a lot of people.

Why is that?

Many people would have him in or near an all time side. Certainly more than would have Lara or Tendulkar in that side. Regardless, it's pretty clear to all who have watched cricket over the last two decades that McGrath has been the best quick bowler by a fairly wide margin (to all but Ambrose). Averaging 22 in an era where a ridiculous number of batsmen average over 50 and the whole era has been geared towards the bat just shows how class of an act he is.

Gilchrist the other one who is a bit puzzling not to see in there. He was an excellent keeper, just a notch below the best pure keepers in history and he was a batsman who was one of the best in the world - renowned for stealing matches from the opposition. He was a more valuable allrounder (though most wouldn't consider him that) than Kallis, who many feel is the best traditional allrounder of the era.

I mean truth be told, the players who should be fighting for the fifth spot behind Warne, Murali, Gilchrist and McGrath are Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting. I find it puzzling how quickly Gilchrist's star in particular seems to have faded in people's minds so soon after his retirement. Especially given his last innings in the World Cup.

I agree with this. Gilchrist > Lara, Tendulkar and probably Ponting too. He walks into an all-time side in the same way a Bradman does.

 

[bagapath]

McGrath not feeling the love from a lot of people.

Why is that?

Many people would have him in or near an all time side. Certainly more than would have Lara or Tendulkar in that side. Regardless, it's pretty clear to all who have watched cricket over the last two decades that McGrath has been the best quick bowler by a fairly wide margin (to all but Ambrose). Averaging 22 in an era where a ridiculous number of batsmen average over 50 and the whole era has been geared towards the bat just shows how class of an act he is.

certainly disagree. he is absolutely one of the top ten fast bowlers of all time for achieving nearly impossible things in an era completely dominated by batting achievements. but all time XIs are very personal selections where the players are selected for not just their stunning numbers but also for representing the selector in a certain way. when it boils down to choosing from a pool of cricketers all differing between 2 or 3 three average points either side, people start looking at style. an accurate, never failing, supremely consistent cricketer like mcgrath somewhat fails on this in most people's books. it is this subjective element that cant be quantified which ultimately decides against his selection in most cases. sachin and lara are also high achievers but they have in addition huge box office appeal that makes them more exciting and they end up in more dream teams.

mcgrath is not the only champion to suffer this injustice. murali is consistently ranked below warne. miandad is not spoken in the same breath as viv richards. flower loses out to gilchrist more often than not. am sure there were more "fans" for ambrose or akram in the last two decades than mcgrath. in all time XIs he will always find it difficult to win more votes than marshall, lillee or hadlee. i respect him, admire him and would vote for him but cant really say i enjoy watching him more than amby or akram.

 

[pasag]

Lara
Tendulkar
McGrath
Murali
Kallis

Bit curious here. Know these are personal lists and all, just wondering how leaving out Ponting fits in with your statistical leanings.

 

[bagapath]

Sachin averages 28 against S.Africa at home. Your point? Sobers averages 15 in NZ and 23 overall. Wally Hammond averages 25 in WIndies.

On the whole, Ponting is simply better. We've been through this.

sachin 54
lara 50
ponting 11

those numbers mean something!

 

[Ikki]

sachin 54
lara 50
ponting 11

those numbers mean something!

They're opinions.

The numbers that really mean something are in Ponting's favour. You wanna stick on your rose-tinted glasses then be my guest. But don't try to argue that because Ponting averages 20 in India it takes away from his distinctly superior record, on the whole, over Sachin - or any modern batsman, for that matter.

 

[0RI0N]

They're opinions.

The numbers that really mean something are in Ponting's favour. You wanna stick on your rose-tinted glasses then be my guest. But don't try to argue that because Ponting averages 20 in India it takes away from his distinctly superior record, on the whole, over Sachin - or any modern batsman, for that matter.

/
pontings simply tramples over srt(and that includes tendulkars 1400 runs vs zim n bang).Now the Tendulkar worshippers are going to say that Tendulkar got injured since...how long has he been injured?03?04?05?
Lara then ponting then srt.
Yes i typed it.so what.

 

[bagapath]

They're opinions.

The numbers that really mean something are in Ponting's favour. You wanna stick on your rose-tinted glasses then be my guest. But don't try to argue that because Ponting averages 20 in India it takes away from his distinctly superior record, on the whole, over Sachin - or any modern batsman, for that matter.

yes, i do argue that. you cant call him the greatest of his era (he is one of the greats, no doubt) and make it an open shut case versus all-time greats like sachin and lara when he is pathetic in a


country. 54 think sachin is in the top 5 of the era. 11 think the same of ponting. who is wearing rose tinted glasses? fifty fricking four and eleven. yeah. yeah. they are just opinions, but it is the majority.